IV. The Original Minute-Book

During the sitting on October 23, the Presiding judge announced:
“Police Superintendent Stieber has indicated to me that he has to make
important new depositions” and for that purpose he called this witness
back into the box. Up jumped Stieber and the performance began.

Hitherto Stieber had described the activities of the Willich-Schapper party,
or more briefly, the Cherval party, activities that took place both
before and after the arrest of the accused in Cologne. He
said nothing about the accused themselves either before or
after their arrest. The Cherval plot took place after their arrest and
Stieber now declared:

“In my earlier testimony I described the development of
the Communist League and the activities of its members only up to the
time when the men now accused were arrested.”

Thus he admitted that the Cherval plot had nothing to do with
“the development of the Communist League and the activities of its
members”. He confessed to the nullity of his previous testimony. Indeed,
he was so complacent about his statements on October 18 that he regarded it as
quite superfluous to continue to identify Cherval with the “Marx
party”.

“Firstly,” he said, “the Willich group
still exists and of its members hitherto only Cherval in Paris has been seized,
etc.”

Aha! So the ringleader Cherval is a leader of the Willich
group.

But now Stieber wished to make some most important announcements,
not merely the very latest announcements that is, but the most
important ones. The very latest and most important ones! These most
important announcements would lose some of their significance if the
insignificance of his earlier announcements were not emphasised. Up to now,
Stieber declared, I have not really said anything, but now the time has come.
Pay attention! Hitherto I have talked about the Cherval party, which is hostile
to the accused, and strictly speaking, none of that has been in place here. But
now I shall discuss the “Marx party”, and this trial is concerned
exclusively with the Marx party. But Stieber could not put the matter as
plainly as this. So he says:

“Up to now I have described the Communist League
before the arrest of the accused; I shall now describe the League
after their arrest.”

With characteristic virtuosity he manages to convert even mere
rhetorical phrases into perjury.

After the arrest of the accused in Cologne Marx formed a new
central authority.

“This emerges from the statement of a police agent whom
the late Chief of Police Schulz had managed to smuggle unrecognised into the
London League and into the immediate proximity of Marx.”

The new central authority kept a minute-book and this, the
“original minute-book”, was now in Stieber’s possession.
Horrifying machinations in the Rhine provinces, in Cologne and even in the
courtroom itself, all this is proved by the original minute-book. It contains,
proof that the accused had maintained an uninterrupted correspondence with Marx
through the very walls of the prison. In a word, if the Dietz archive was the
Old Testament, the original minute-book is the New Testament. The Old Testament
was wrapped in stout oil-cloth, but the New Testament is bound in a sinister
red morocco leather. Now the red morocco is indeed a demonstratio ad
oculos, but people today are even more sceptical than in Thomas’
time; they do not even believe what they see with their own eyes. Who still
believes in Testaments, let them be Old or New, now that the religion of the
Mormons has been invented? But Stieber, who is not wholly unsympathetic to
Mormonism, has foreseen even this.

“It might be objected,” Stieber the Mormon
observed, “that these are nothing but the tales of contemptible police
agents but,” Stieber swore, “I have complete proofs of the veracity
and reliability of their reports.”

Just listen to that! Proofs of their veracity and proofs of
their reliability? and complete proofs at that. Complete proofs! And what are
these proofs?

Stieber had long known

“that a secret correspondence existed between Marx and
the accused men in the gaol, but had been unable to track it down. Then on
the previous Sunday a special courier from London arrived bringing me the
news that we had finally managed to discover the secret address from which the
correspondence had been conducted. It was the address of D. Kothes, a
businessman in the Old Market here. The same courier brought me the original
minute-book used by the London Central Authority which had been procured from a
member of the League for money.”

Stieber then communicated with Chief of Police Geiger and the
postal authorities.

“The necessary precautionary measures were taken and
after no more than two days the evening post from London brought with
it a letter addressed to Kothes. On the instructions of the Chief Public
Prosecutor the letter was detained and opened and in it was found a
seven-page-long briefing for Schneider II, the Counsel for the Defence, in
Marx’s own handwriting. It indicated the method of defence that Counsel
should adopt.... On the reverse side of the letter there was a large Latin B.
The letter was copied and an easily detachable piece of the original was
retained together with the original envelope. The letter was then put
into a new envelope, sealed and given to a police officer from another town
with the order that he should go to Kothes, and introduce himself as an
emissary from Marx,” etc.

Stieber then narrated the rest of the disgusting farce enacted
by the police, about how the police officer from another town had pretended to
be an emissary from Marx, etc. Kothes was arrested on October 18 and after 24
hours he declared that the B on the inside of the letter stood for Bermbach. On
October 19 Bermbach was arrested and his house searched. On October 21 Kothes
and Bermbach were released.

Stieber gave this evidence on Saturday, October 23. “The previous
Sunday”, that is Sunday, October 17, was allegedly the day the
special courier arrived with Kothes’ address and the original minute-book
and two days after the courier, the letter arrived for Kothes, that is on
October 19. But Kothes had already been arrested on October 18 because of the
letter the police officer from another town had brought him on October 17. The
letter to Kothes, therefore, arrived two days before the courier with
Kothes’ address, that is Kothes was arrested on October 18 for a letter
that he did not receive until October 19. A chronological miracle?

Later, having been worried by Counsel, Stieber declared that the courier
with Kothes’ address and the original minute-book arrived on October 10.
Why on October 10? Because October 10 happened to be likewise a Sunday and on
October 23 it too would be a “previous” Sunday and in this way the
original statement about the previous Sunday could be sustained and to this
extent the perjury could be concealed. In that event, however, the letter did
not arrive two days but a whole week after the courier. The perjury now fell on
the letter rather than on the courier. Stieber’s oath is like
Luther’s peasant. If you help him to mount the horse from one side he
falls down on the other.

And finally during the sitting of November 3 Police Lieutenant Goldheim of
Berlin declared that Police Lieutenant Greif of London had delivered the
minute-book to Stieber on October 11, that is to say on a Monday, in his
presence and that of Chief of Police Wermuth. Goldheim’s statement
therefore makes Stieber guilty of perjury twice over.

As the original envelope with the London postmark shows, Marx posted the
letter to Kothes on Thursday, October 14. So the letter should have arrived on
Friday evening, October 15. For a courier to deliver Kothes’ address and
the original minute-book two days before the letter arrived, he must have come
on Wednesday, October 13. He could not arrive on October 17th, nor on the 10th
nor on the 11th.

Greif, in his role of courier, did indeed bring Stieber his original
minute-book from London. Stieber was as well aware as his crony Greif of the
real significance of this book. He hesitated therefore to produce it in court
for this time it was not a matter of statements taken behind prison bars in
Mazas. Then came the letter from Marx. It was a godsend for Stieber. Kothes is
a mere address, for the contents of the letter were not intended for Kothes but
for the Latin B on the back of the enclosed sealed letter. Kothes is therefore
nothing but an address. Let us suppose he is a secret address. Let us
suppose further he is the secret address through which Marx communicates with
the accused in Cologne. Let us suppose lastly that our London agents had sent
by the same courier at the same time both the original minute-book and this
secret address but that the letter arrived two days after the courier, the
address and the minute-book. In this way we kill two birds with one stone.
Firstly we have proof of the secret correspondence with Marx and secondly we
prove that the original minute-book is authentic. The authenticity of the
minute-book is shown by the correctness of the address, the correctness of the
address is shown by the letter. The veracity and reliability of our agents is
shown by the address and the letter, the authenticity of the minute-book is
shown by the veracity and reliability of our agents. Quod erat
demonstrandum. Then comes the merry comedy with the police official from
another town and then come the mysterious arrests. Public, jurymen and even the
accused, all stand thunderstruck.

But why did not Stieber let his special courier arrive on October
13, which would have been quite easy for him? Because in that case he would not
have been special, because, as we have seen, chronology was not his strong
point and the common calendar is beneath the dignity of a Prussian police
superintendent. Moreover, he kept the original envelope; so who would be able
to unravel the affair?

But giving his evidence, Stieber compromised himself from the outset by the
omission of one fact. If his agents knew of Kothes’ address they would
also know to whom the mysterious B referred on the reverse of the inside
letter. Stieber was so little initiated into the mysteries of the Latin B that
on October 17 he had Becker searched in gaol in the hope of finding the letter
from Marx on him. He only learnt from Kothes’ statement that the B stood
for Bermbach.

But how did Marx’s letter fall into the hands of the Prussian
government? Very simply. The Prussian government regularly opens the letters
entrusted to its postal service and during the trial in Cologne it did this
with particular assiduity. In Aachen and Frankfurt am Main they could tell some
pretty stories about it. It was a pure chance whether a letter would slip
through or not.

When the story about the original courier collapsed, the one about the
original minute-book had to share its fate. Naturally, Stieber did not yet
suspect this in the sitting on October 23 when he triumphantly revealed the
contents of the New Testament, that is the red book. The immediate effect of
his statement was the re-arrest of Bermbach, who was present at the trial as a
witness.

Why was Bermbach re-arrested?

Because of the papers found on him? No, for after his house had been
searched he was released again. He was arrested 24 hours after Kothes.
Therefore if he had had incriminating documents they would certainly have
disappeared by then. Why then was witness Bermbach arrested, when the witnesses
Hentze, Hätzel, Steingens, who had been shown to be accomplices or members of
the league, still sat unmolested on the witness bench?

Bermbach had received a letter from Marx which contained a mere criticism of
the indictment and nothing else besides. This Stieber admitted since the letter
was there for the jury to see. But he couched the admission in his hyperbolic
policeman’s manner thus: “Marx himself exercises an uninterrupted
influence on the present case from London.” And the jury might well ask
themselves, as Guizot asked his voters: Est-ce que vous vous sentez
corrompus? What then was the reason for Bermbach’s arrest? From the
beginning of the inquiry the Prussian Government as a matter of
principle strove consistently to deprive the accused of all means
of defence. In direct contradiction to the law, defence counsel, as they
announced in open court, were refused access to the accused even after
presentation of the bill of indictment. On his own testimony Stieber had been
in possession of the Dietz archive ever since August 5, 1851. But the Dietz
archive was not appended to the indictment. Not until October 18, 1852, was it
produced in the middle of a public hearing — and only so much of it was
produced as Stieber thought politic. The jury, the accused and the public were
all to be caught off their guard and taken by surprise; defence counsel were to
stand by helplessly in the face of the surprise prepared by the police.

And even more so after the presentation of the original minute-book! The
Prussian Government trembled at the thought of revelations. Bermbach however
had received material for the defence from Marx and it could be foreseen that
he would receive information about the minute-book. His arrest denoted the
proclamation of a new crime, that of corresponding with Marx, and the
punishment for this crime was imprisonment. That was intended to deter every
Prussian citizen from permitting his address to be used. A bon entendeur
demi mot. Bermbach was lockedup so that evidence for
the defence might be locked out. And Bermbach remained in gaol for
five weeks. For if they had released him immediately after the case was
concluded the Prussian courts would have publicly proclaimed their docile
subservience to the Prussian police. So Bermbach remained in gaol, ad
majorem gloriam of the Prussian judiciary.

Stieber swore on oath that

“after the arrest of the accused in Cologne, Marx
joined together the ruins of his party in London and formed a new central
authority with about eighteen people,” etc.

The ruins had never come apart for they were so joined together
that they had formed a private society ever since September 1850. But at a word
from Stieber they promptly vanished only to be revived by another command from
Stieber after the arrest of the accused in Cologne and this time they appear in
the form of a new central authority.

On Monday, October 25, the Kölnische Zeitung arrived in London with
an account of Stieber’s testimony of October 23.

The “Marx party” had neither formed a new central authority nor
kept minutes of its meetings. They guessed at once who had been the chief
manufacturer of the New Testament — Wilhelm Hirsch from
Hamburg.

Early in December 1851 Hirsch appeared at the “Marx society”
saying he was a communist refugee. Simultaneously, letters arrived from Hamburg
denouncing him as a spy. But it was decided to allow him to remain in the
society for the time being and watch him with a view to procuring proof of his
innocence or guilt. At the meeting on January 15, 1852, a letter from Cologne
was read aloud in which a friend of Marx referred to another postponement of
the trial and to the difficulty experienced even by relatives in gaining access
to the accused. On this occasion mention was made of Frau Dr. Daniels. People
were struck by the fact that Hirsch was not seen again after this meeting
either in anyone’s “immediate proximity” or at a distance. On
February 2, 1852, Marx was notified from Cologne that Frau Dr. Daniels’
house had been searched as the result of a police denunciation which claimed
that a letter from Frau Daniels to Marx had been read out in the communist
society in London and that Marx had been instructed to write back to her
telling her that he was busy reorganising the League in Germany, etc. This
denunciation literally fills the first page of the original minute-book.

Marx replied by return of post that as Frau Daniels had never written to him
he could not possibly have read out a letter from her; the whole denunciation
had been invented by a certain Hirsch, a dissolute young man who had no
objection to supplying the Prussian police with as many lies as they had a mind
to pay for in cash.

Since January 15 Hirsch had disappeared from the meetings; he was now
formally expelled from the society. At the same time it was resolved to change
the time and place of the meetings. Hitherto, meetings had taken place on
Thursdays on premises belonging to J. W. Masters, Markethouse, in
Farringdon Street, City. From now on it was agreed that the society would meet
on Wednesdays in the Rose and Crown Tavern, Crown Street, Soho.
Hirsch, whom “Chief of Police Schulz had managed to smuggle unrecognised
into the immediate proximity of Marx”, despite his
“proximity” was unaware even eight months later of the place and
day of the meetings. Both before and after February he persisted in
manufacturing his “original minute-book” on a Thursday and
dating the meetings on Thursdays. If the Kölnische Zeitung is
consulted the following can be found: Minutes of January 15 (Thursday),
likewise January 29 (Thursday), and March 4 (Thursday), and May 13 (Thursday),
and May 20 (Thursday), and July 22 (Thursday), and July 29 (Thursday), and
September 23 (Thursday), and September 30 (Thursday).

The landlord of the Rose and Crown Tavern made a declaration before the
magistrate in Marlborough Street to the effect that “Dr. Marx’s
circle” had met in his tavern every Wednesday since February 1852.
Liebknecht and Rings, whom Hirsch had named as the secretaries for his original
minute-book, had their signatures witnessed by the same magistrate. And
finally, the minutes Hirsch had kept in Stechan’s Workers’
Society[281] were
obtained so that his handwriting might be compared with that in the original
minute-book.

In this way the spurious nature of the original minute-book was demonstrated
without it being necessary to embark upon a criticism of the contents which
their own contradictions caused to disintegrate.

The real difficulty was how to send these documents to Counsel. The Prussian
Post was merely an outpost, situated between the Prussian frontier and Cologne,
and designed to frustrate the passage of munitions to the defence.

It was necessary to use roundabout ways and so the first documents,
despatched on October 25, arrived in Cologne only on October 30.

Counsel were at first forced to make do with the very meagre resources that
lay at hand in Cologne. The first blow against Stieber came from a direction he
had not foreseen. Frau Dr. Daniels’ father Müller, a King’s Counsel
and a man in high repute as a legal expert and well known for his conservative
views, declared in the KönischeZeitung on October 26 that
his daughter had never corresponded with Marx and that Stieber’s original
book was a piece of “mystification”. The letter Marx had sent to
Cologne on February 3, 1852, in which Hirsch was alluded to as a spy and a
manufacturer of false police notices, was found by chance and put at the
disposal of the defence. In the “Marx party’s” notice of
resignation from the Great Windmill Street Society which was included in the
Dietz archive, a genuine specimen of W. Liebknecht’s handwriting was
discovered. Lastly, Schneider II, Counsel for the Defence, obtained some
genuine letters by Liebknecht from Birnbaum, the secretary of the Council for
Poor-Relief in Cologne, and genuine letters by Rings from a private secretary
called Schmitz. At the offices of the court Counsel compared the minute-book
with Liebknecht’s handwriting in the notice of resignation and also with
letters by Rings and Liebknecht.

Stieber, who was already alarmed by the declaration of Müller, King’s
Counsel, now heard of these ominous handwriting investigations. To forestall
the imminent blow he again leaped up in court during the sitting on October 27,
and declared that

“the fact that Liebknecht’s signature in the
minute-book differed greatly from a signature that already was in the dossier
had seemed very suspicious to him. He had therefore made further inquiries and
had learnt that the signatory in the minute-book in question was H.
Liebknecht whereas the name in the dossier was preceded by the initial
W.”

When Counsel, Schneider II, asked him: “Who informed you
that an H. Liebknecht also exists?”, Stieber refused to answer.
Schneider II then asked for further information about Rings and Ulmer who
appear together with Liebknecht as secretaries in the minute-book. Stieber
smelt a new trap. He ignored the question three times, and tried to conceal his
embarrassment and to regain his composure by recounting three times and for no
reason how the minute-book had come into his possession. At last he stammered:
The names Rings and Ulmer are probably not real names at all but only
“League names”. Stieber explained the frequent mention in
the minute-book of Frau Dr. Daniels as a correspondent of Marx by surmising
that perhaps the young notary Bermbach was really meant, when the book
said Frau Dr. Daniels. Counsel, von Hontheim, questioned him about
Hirsch.

“He did not know this man Hirsch
either,” Stieber swore. “Contrary to rumour however it is obvious
that he is not a Prussian agent if only because the Prussian police are on the
lookout for him.”

At a signal from Stieber Goldheim buzzed into view and said
that

“in October 1851 he was sent to Hamburg in order to
apprehend Hirsch”.

We shall see how the very same Goldheim was sent to London on
the following day to apprehend the very same Hirsch. So the very same Stieber
who claimed that he had bought the Dietz archive and the original minute-book
from refugees for cash, that same Stieber now asserts that Hirsch cannot be a
Prussian agent because he is a refugee! You have only to be a refugee and
Stieber will guarantee your absolute venality or absolute incorruptibility,
just as it suits his book. And is not Fleury likewise a political refugee, the
same Fleury whom Stieber denounced as a police agent in the sitting on November
3?

When the defences of his original minute-book had been breached on every
side, Stieber summed up the situation on October 27 with a classical display of
impudence, stating that

“his belief in the authenticity of the minute-book
is firmer than ever”.

At the sitting of October 29 an expert compared the letters of Liebknecht
and Rings, which had been submitted by Birnbaum and Schmitz, with the
minute-book and declared the signatures in the latter to be false.

The Chief Public Prosecutor, Seckendorf, said in his speech:

“The information contained in the minute-book coincides
with facts derived from other sources. But the prosecution is quite unable to
prove the book’s authenticity.”

The book is authentic, but its authenticity cannot be proved.
The New Testament! Seckendorf continued:

“But the defence has itself shown that at least the
book contains much that is true, for example it gives us information about the
activities of Rings, who is mentioned there, activities about which no one knew
anything before.”

If no one knew anything about Rings’ activities before, the
minute-book does not provide any information about it either. Therefore the
statements about Rings’ activities could not confirm the truth of the
minute-book’s contents and as regards its form they demonstrated that the
signature of a member of the “Marx party” was in truth
false, and had been forged. They proved then, according to Seckendorf, that
“at least the book contains much that is true” — i.e.
atrue forgery. The Chief Public Prosecutors
(Saedt-Seckendorf) and the postal authorities had together with Stieber opened
the letter to Kothes. Therefore they knew the date of its arrival. Therefore
they knew that Stieber committed perjury when he caused the courier to arrive
at first on October 17 and, later, on the 10th, and the letter first on October
19 and then on the 12th. They were his accomplices.

At the sitting on October 27 Stieber tried in vain to preserve a calm
appearance. He feared that any day the incriminating documents might arrive
from London. Stieber felt ill at ease and the Prussian state, incarnate in him,
felt ill at ease too. The public exposure had reached a dangerous stage. So
Police Lieutenant Goldheim was sent to London on October 28 to save the
fatherland. What did Goldheim do in London? Aided by Greif and Fleury, he
attempted to persuade Hirsch to go to Cologne and, under the name of H.
Liebknecht, to swear to the authenticity of the minute-book. Hirsch was
offered a real state pension, but Hirsch’s policeman’s instincts
were as good as Goldheim’s. Hirsch knew that he was neither Public
Prosecutor nor Police Lieutenant, nor Police Superintendent, and therefore had
not the privilege of committing perjury with impunity. His instincts told him
that he would be dropped as soon as things began to go wrong. Hirsch did not
want to become a goat, and least of all a scapegoat. Hirsch flatly refused. But
the Christian-Germanic government of Prussia won lasting fame for having
attempted to bribe a man to bear false witness in the course of criminal
proceedings in which the heads of its own citizens were at stake.

Goldheim thus returned to Cologne without having achieved his object.

In the sitting on November 3, when the prosecutor had concluded his address
and before Counsel for the defence could commence his, Stieber, caught between
the two, leaped once again into the breach swearing that

“he had now ordered further research into the
minute-book. He had sent Police Lieutenant Goldheim from Cologne to London to
pursue the inquiry there. Goldheim left on October 28 and returned on November
2. Here is Goldheim.”

At a signal from his master Goldheim buzzed into view and swore
that

“on arriving in London he went first to Police
Lieutenant Greif who took him to police agent Fleury in the borough of
Kensington for it was Fleury from whom Greif had obtained the book. Fleury
admitted as much to him, the witness Goldheim, and asserted that he had really
received the book from a member of the Marx party called H. Liebknecht.
Fleury definitely recognised the receipt H. Liebknecht had given him for
the money he had received for the book. Goldheim was not able to catch hold of
Liebknecht himself in London because he was, according to Fleury, afraid to
appear in public. During his stay in London witness became convinced that, a
few errors apart, the content of the book was entirely genuine. Reliable agents
who had been present at Marx’s meetings had confirmed this to him. The
book itself however was not the original minute-book but only a notebook
on the proceedings at Marx’s meetings. There are only two possible
explanations for the admittedly still rather obscure origin of the book.
Either, as the agent insists, it really emanates from Liebknecht, who has
refused to give a specimen of his handwriting in order that there should be no
proof of his treachery; or the agent Fleury obtained the notes for the book
from Dronke and Imandt, two other émigré friends of Marx, and put them in the
form of an original minute-book in order to increase the value of his
commodity. Police Lieutenant Greif has officially stated that Dronke and Imandt
frequently consorted with Fleury.... The witness Goldheim asserts his stay in
London has convinced him that everything that had been said previously about
secret meetings in Marx’s home, about the contacts between London and
Cologne and about the secret correspondence, etc., was true in every
particular. As evidence of how well informed the Prussian agents in London were
even today, he would inform the Court that a completely secret meeting took
place in Marx’s house on October 27 to discuss what steps should be taken
to counteract the minute-book and above all the activities of Police
Superintendent Stieber, who was a thorn in the side of the London Party. The
relevant decisions and documents were sent in complete secrecy to the lawyer,
Schneider II. In particular, among the papers sent to Schneider II was a
private letter that Stieber himself wrote to Marx in Cologne in 1848 and that
Marx had hitherto kept very secret in the hope that it might be used to
compromise the witness Stieber.”

Witness Stieber leaped up and declared that he had
written to Marx about an infamous slander, and had threatened to sue him,
etc.

“No one but Marx and he could know this and this was
indeed the strongest proof of the accuracy of the information from
London.”

So according to Goldheim the original minute-book is
“entirely genuine”, apart from the false parts. What
convinced him of its authenticity is in particular the circumstance that the
original minute-book is no original minute-book but only a
“notebook”. And Stieber? Stieber was by no means
thunderstruck; on the contrary a great weight had been lifted from his mind. At
the very last moment, when the sound of the prosecutor’s last words had
hardly faded away and before the first word of the defence had been uttered,
Stieber managed with the aid of his Goldheim quickly to transform the original
minute-book into a notebook. When two policemen accuse each other of lying,
does that not prove that they are both addicted to telling the truth? Through
Goldheim Stieber was able to cover his retreat.

Goldheim testified that “on arriving in London he went first to Police
Lieutenant Greif,who took him to police agent Fleury in the borough of
Kensington”. Now who would not swear on oath that poor Goldheim and
Police Lieutenant Greif must have worn themselves out walking or driving to
Fleury’s house in the remote borough of Kensington? But Police Lieutenant
Greif lives in the same house as police agent Fleury, in fact he lives on the
top floor of Fleury’s house, so that in reality it was not Greif who took
Goldheim to Fleury, but Fleury who took Goldheim to Greif.

“Police agent Fleury in the borough of Kensington!” What
precision! Can you still doubt the truthfulness of a Prussian government that
denounces its own spies, gives their name and address and every detail, body
and soul? If the minute-book is false you can still rely on “police agent
Fleury in Kensington”. Yes, indeed. On private secretary Pierre in the
13th arrondissement. If you wish to specify a person you must give his
Christian name as well as his surname. Not Fleury but Charles
Fleury. And you must also name the profession that he practises in public, and
not his clandestine activities. So it is Charles Fleury, a
businessman not Fleury, the police agent. And when you state his
address you do not merely name a London borough, a town in itself, but you give
the borough, the street and the number of the house. So it is not police agent
Fleury in Kensington but Charles Fleury, a businessman, 17 Victoria Road,
Kensington.

But “Police Lieutenant Greif”, that at any rate is
frankly spoken! But when Police Lieutenant Greif attaches himself to the
embassy in London and the Lieutenant turns into an attaché that of course is an
attachment of no concern to the courts. The heart’s desire is the voice
of fate.

So Police Lieutenant Goldheim asserts that police agent Fleury asserted that
he had the book from a man who really asserted that he was H. Liebknecht
and who had even given a receipt to Fleury. The only drawback is that Goldheim
was unable “to catch hold of” the said H. Liebknecht in
London. So Goldheim could have stayed quietly in Cologne for Police
Superintendent Stieber’s assertion does not look any healthier for the
fact that it appears as an assertion of Police Lieutenant Goldheim’s,
which had been asserted by Police Lieutenant Greif, for whom in his turn police
agent Fleury had done the favour of agreeing to assert his assertion.

Goldheim’s London experiences were hardly encouraging but, undeterred
and with the aid of his considerable faculty for convincing himself (which in
his case must do duty for the faculty of reasoning), he convinced himself
“completely” that “everything” that
Stieber had affirmed on oath concerning the “Marx party”, about its
contacts in Cologne, etc., was “all true in every
particular”. And now that Goldheim, his junior official, has issued
him with a testimonium paupertatis, surely Police Superintendent
Stieber is fully covered now? Stieber’s method of swearing has at least
one achievement to its credit: he has turned the whole Prussian hierarchy
upside down. You don’t believe the Police Superintendent? Very well. He
has compromised himself. But surely you will believe the Police Lieutenant? You
don’t believe him either? Better still. Then you have no other choice
than to believe at least the police agent alias mouchardus vulgaris.
Such is the heretical conceptual confusion that our swearingStieber has created.

Goldheim proved that in London he had established the non-existence of the
original minute-book, and as for the existence of H. Liebknecht that he was
unable “to catch hold” of it in London, and it was precisely this
that convinced him that “all” Stieber’s statements
about the “Marx party” “were true in every
particular”. In addition to these negative proofs, which in
Seckendorf’s view contained “much that was true”, he had in
the end to produce the positive proof of “how well informed the Prussian
agents in London were even today”. As evidence of this he mentions that
on October 27 there had been a “completely secret meeting in Marx’s
house”. In this completely secret meeting steps were discussed to
counteract the minute-book and Police Superintendent Stieber, that “thorn
in their side”. The relevant orders and decisions were “sent in
complete secrecy to the lawyer, Schneider II”.

Although the Prussian agents were present at these meetings the route taken
by these letters remained so “completely secret” that all the
efforts of the postal authorities to intercept them were in vain. Listen to the
cricket chirping sadly from among the ageing and venerable ruins: “The
relevant letters and documents were sent in complete secrecy to the lawyer,
Schneider II.” Completely secret for Goldheim’s secret agents.

The imaginary decisions about the minute-book cannot have been made at the
completely secret meeting in Marx’s house on October 27 for already on
October 25 Marx had sent the chief reports about the spurious nature of the
minute-book not indeed to Schneider II, but to Herr von Hontheim.

It was not merely the bad conscience of the police that gave them the idea
that documents had been sent to Cologne. On October 29 Goldheim arrived in
London. On October 30 Goldheim found a statement signed by Engels, Freiligrath,
Marx and Wolff in The Morning Advertiser, The Spectator, The Examiner,
The Leader and The People’s Paper in which the
attention of the English public was drawn to the revelations that the defence
would make of forgery, perjury, the falsification of documents in short of all
the infamies perpetrated by the Prussian police. The sending of the documents
was veiled in such “complete secrecy” that the “Marx
party” openly informed the English public about this, though not until
October 30 by which time Goldheim had arrived in London and the documents in
Cologne.

However, on October 27 documents were also sent to Cologne. How did the
omniscient Prussian police learn of this?

The Prussian police did not pursue their activities with quite such
“complete secrecy” as the “Marx party”. On the
contrary, for weeks they had openly posted two of their spies in front of
Marx’s house and from the street they watched him du soir jusqu'au
matin and du matin jusqu'au soir and dogged his every step. Now
the absolutely secret documents, containing the genuine specimens of
Liebknecht’s and Rings’ handwriting together with the statement of
the landlord of the Crown Tavern concerning the days of the society’s
meetings, these absolutely secret documents Marx had officially witnessed in
the absolutely public police court in Marlborough Street in the presence of
reporters from the English daily press on October 27. His Prussian guardian
angels followed him from his house to Marlborough Street and from Marlhorough
Street back to his house and from his house to the post office. They did not in
fact disappear until Marx had gone in absolute secrecy to the local magistrate
in order to obtain a warrant for the arrest of his two
“followers”.

Moreover, yet another way lay open to the Prussian government. For Marx sent
the documents that were dated October 27 and had been witnessed on October 27
directly to Cologne through the post in order to ensure that the talons of the
Prussian eagle would not seize the duplicates that had been sent in
absolutesecrecy. Both postal authorities and the police in
Cologne knew then that documents dated October 27 had been forwarded by Marx
and there was no need for Goldheim to make the journey to London in order to
unravel the mystery.

Goldheim felt that after all he ought “in particular”
to reveal something “particular” that the “absolutely secret
meeting on October 27” had resolved to send to Schneider II, he therefore
mentioned the letter written by Stieber to Marx. Unfortunately Marx
had sent this letter not on October 27 but on October 25 and it was sent not to
Schneider II but to Herr von Hontheim. But how did the police know that Marx
still had Stieber’s letter in his possession and that he intended to send
it to the defence? Let us however permit Stieber to leap up once more.

Stieber hoped to forestall Schneider II and thus prevent him from reading
aloud in court what was for him a very “unpleasant letter”. Stieber
calculated: If Goldheim says that Schneider II has my letter and that he has it
thanks to his “criminal contact with Marx”, then Schneider II will
suppress the letter so as to prove that Goldheim’s agents were
misinformed and that he himself does not maintain any criminal contact with
Marx. So Stieber leaped up, gave a false account of the content of the letter
and concluded with the astonishing declaration that “no one but himself
and Marx could know this and this was indeed the strongest proof of the
reliability of the information from London”.

Stieber has a strange method of keeping secret facts that he finds
unpalatable. If he remains silent, the whole world must keep silence. Hence
“no one can know” apart from him and a certain elderly lady that he
once lived near Weimar as an homme entretenu. But if Stieber had every
reason to make sure that no one but Marx should know of the letter, Marx had
every reason to let everyone apart from Stieber know about it. We now know the
strongest proof of the information from London. What does
Stieber’s weakest proof look like?

But once again Stieber knowingly commits perjury when he says “no one
but myself and Marx could know this”. He knew that it was not Marx but
another editor of the Rheinische Zeitung who had answered his
letter.[282] So there
had been at least “one man other than Marx and himself”. In order
that even more people may learn of it we print the letter here:

“No. 177 of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung
contains a news item from your correspondent in Frankfurt am Main dated
December 21 in which a base lie is reported to the effect that being a police
spy I went to Frankfurt to try, while pretending to hold democratic views, to
discover the murderers of Prince Lichnowski and General Auerswald. I was in
fact in Frankfurt on the 21st but stayed only one day and as you can see from
the accompanying certificate I was engaged in purely private business on behalf
of a lady from here, Frau von Schwezler. I have long since returned to Berlin
and resumed my work as defence counsel. I would refer you moreover to the
official correction in this matter that has already appeared in No. 338 of the
Frankfurter Oberpostamts-Zeitung of December 21 and in No. 248 of the
Berlin National-Zeitung. I believe that I may expect from your respect
for the truth that you will print the enclosed correction in your paper without
delay and that you will also give me the name of your slanderous informant in
accordance with your legal obligations, for I cannot possibly permit such a
libel to go unpunished, otherwise I shall regretfully be compelled to proceed
against your editorial board.

“I believe that in recent times democracy is indebted
to no one more than myself. It was I who rescued hundreds of democrats who had
been charged from the nets of the criminal courts. It was I who even while a
state of siege was proclaimed here persistently and fearlessly challenged the
authorities (and do so to this very day), while all the cowardly and
contemptible fellows (the so-called democrats) had long since fled the field.
When democratic organs treat me in this fashion it is scarcely an encouragement
to me to make further efforts.

“The real joke, however, in the present case lies in
the clumsiness of the organs of democracy. The rumour that I went to Frankfurt
as a police agent was spread first by that notorious organ of reaction, the
Neue Prussische Zeitung in order to undermine my activities as defence
counsel that gave that paper such offence. The other Berlin papers have long
since corrected this report. But the democratic papers are so inept that they
parrot this stupid lie. If I had wished to go to Frankfurt as a spy it would
certainly not be announced beforehand in every newspaper. And how could Prussia
send a police official to Frankfurt which has enough competent officials of its
own? Stupidity has always been the failing of the democrats and their
opponents’ cunning has always brought them to victory.

“It is likewise a contemptible lie to say that years
ago I was a police spy in Silesia. At that time I was openly employed as a
police officer and as such I did my duty. Contemptible lies have been
circulated about me. If anyone can prove that I insinuated my way into his
favour let him come forth and do so. Anyone can make assertions and tell lies.
I think of you as an honest, decent man and so I expect from you a satisfactory
answer by return of post. The democratic papers are generally in disrepute here
because of the many lies they publish. I hope that you are a man of a different
stamp.

How then did Stieber know that on October 27 Marx had sent this letter to
Schneider II? But it was not sent on October 27 but on October 25, and it was
not sent to Schneider II but to von Hontheim. Stieber therefore knew only that
the letter still existed and he suspected that Marx would put it in the hands
of some defence counsel or other. Whence this suspicion? When the Kölnische
Zeitung brought Stieber’s testimony on October 18 about Cherval,
etc., to London, Marx sent a statement dated October 21 to the Kölnische
Zeitung, the Berlin National-Zeitung and the Frankfurter
Journal and at the end of this statement Stieber was threatened with his
still existing letter. In order to keep this letter “completely
secret” Marx himself announced it in the newspapers. He failed, because
of the cowardice of the daily press in Germany, but the Prussian post was now
informed and with the Prussian post, its — Stieber.

What then was the message Goldheim chirruped back from London?

That Hirsch has not committed perjury, that H. Liebknecht has no
“tangible” existence, that the original minute-book is no original
minute-book and that the all-knowing London agents know all that the
“Marx party” has published in the London press. To save the honour
of the Prussian agents Goldheim placed in their mouths the few titbits of
information that Stieber ‘discovered’ in letters he had opened or
purloined.

In the sitting on November 4 after Schneider II had annihilated Stieber and
his minute-book and shown him to be guilty of forgery and perjury, Stieber
leaped into the breach for the last time and gave vent to his moral
indignation. They even dare, he cried out, his Soul mortally wounded, they even
dare to accuse Herr Wermuth, Chief of Police Wermuth, of perjury! Stieber
thereby returned to the orthodox hierarchy, to the rising scale. Earlier he had
moved on the heterodox, descending scale. If he, a police superintendent, could
not be trusted, well then surely his police lieutenant could be; and if not the
police lieutenant, then surely his police agent; and if not agent Fleury, then
surely subagent Hirsch. But now it is in reverse. He, the police
superintendent, can perhaps commit perjury, but Wermuth, a Chiefof Police? Unbelievable! In his rage he praised Wermuth with mounting
bitterness, he served Wermuth up to the public neat, Wermuth as a human being,
Wermuth as a lawyer, Wermuth as paterfamilias, Wermuth as a Chief of Police,
Wermuth for ever. Even now, during the public hearing, Stieber did not stop
trying to isolate the accused and to erect a barrier between the defence and
the defence materials. He accused Schneider II of “criminal
contact” with Marx. In attacking him Schneider was impugning the highest
authorities of Prussia. Even Göbel, the Presiding judge of the court, even a
Göbel felt overwhelmed by Stieber’s onslaught. He could not overlook it
and even though in a timorous and servile way he did lash Stieber with a few
rebukes. But Stieber was in the right for all that. It was not merely he as a
person that stood exposed to public view: it was the prosecution, the courts,
the postal authorities, the government, the police headquarters in Berlin, it
was the ministries and the Prussian embassy in London, in short it was the
whole Prussian state that stood in the pillory with him, original minute-book
in hand.

Herr Stieber is herewith granted permission to print the answer the Neue
Rheinische Zeitung returned to his letter.

Let us now return once more to London with Goldheim.

Just as Stieber is still ignorant of Cherval’s whereabouts and true
identity so too, according to Goldheim’s testimony (in the sitting on
November 3), the origin of the minute-book is an enigma that is still not fully
resolved. To resolve it Goldheim put forward two hypotheses.

“There are only two possible explanations,” he said, “for
the still rather obscure origin of the book. Either, as the agent insists, it
really emanates from Liebknecht, who has refused to give a specimen of his
handwriting in order that there should be no proof of his treachery.”

W. Liebknecht is well known as a member of the “Marx
party”. But it is no less well known that the signature in the
minute-book does not belong to W. Liebknecht. In the sitting on October
27 Stieber therefore swore that the signature was not that of W.
Liebknecht but of another Liebknecht, an H. Liebknecht. He had
learnt of the existence of this double without being able however to disclose
the source of his discovery. Goldheim swore: “Fleury asserted that he had
really received the book from a member of the ‘Marx party’ called
H. Liebknecht.” Goldheim swore further: “I was not able to
catch hold of the said H. Liebknecht in London.” Up to now,
therefore, what signs of life has the H. Liebknecht that
Stieber has discovered given to the world in general and to Police Lieutenant
Goldheim in particular? No sign of life other than his handwriting in the
original minute-book; but now Goldheim declares: “Liebknecht has refused
to give a specimen of his handwriting.”

Up to the present H. Liebknecht existed only as a signature. Now
nothing remains of H. Liebknecht at all, not even a signature, not even
the dot on the i. How Goldheim could possibly know that H.
Liebknecht’s handwriting differs from the handwriting in the
minute-book, when the handwriting in the minute-book is his only proof of H.
Liebknecht’s existence, that is Goldheim’s secret. If Stieber
has his miracles, why should not Goldheim have his miracles too?

Goldheim forgot that his superior, Stieber, had sworn to H.
Liebknecht’s existence before him, and that he too had just sworn to
it. In the same breath in which he swears to H. Liebknecht he recollects
that H. Liebknecht is nothing but a makeshift, invented by Stieber, a
necessary fib and necessity knows no law. He remembers that there is but one
genuine Liebknecht, W. Liebknecht, but that if W. Liebknecht is
genuine then the signature in the minute-book is a forgery. He cannot confess
that Fleury’s subagent had manufactured the false signature along with
the false minute-book. Accordingly he invents the hypothesis: “Liebknecht
has refused to give a specimen signature.” Let us likewise construct a
hypothesis. Goldheim once forged banknotes. He is brought before the courts; it
is proved that the signature on the banknote is not that of the bank director.
Don’t take offence, gentlemen, Goldheim will say, don’t take
offence. The banknote is genuine. It comes from the bank director himself. If
his name appears signed by someone other than him what does that matter?
“He merely refused to give a specimen of his handwriting.”

Or, Goldheim continues, if the hypothesis with Liebknecht turns out
to he false: “Or the agent Fleury obtained the notes for the book from
Dronke and Imandt, two other émigré friends of Marx, and then put them in the
form of an original minute-book in order to increase the value of his
commodity. Police Lieutenant Greif has officially stated that Dronke and Imandt
frequently consorted with Fleury.”

Or? How so, or? If a book like the original minute-book signed by three
people, Liebknecht, Rings and Ulmer, no deduce that “it emanates either
from Liebknecht” — or from Dronke and Imandt, but: It emanates
either from Liebknecht or from Rings and from Ulmer. Should our unfortunate
Goldheim, now that he has climbed to the dizzy heights of a disjunction —
either-or — should he now repeat: “Rings and Ulmer have refused to
give specimens of their handwriting"? Even Goldheim realises the need for new
tactics.

If the original minute-book does not emanate from Liebknecht, as the agent
Fleury claimed, then it must have been manufactured by Fleury himself, but the
notes for it were provided by Dronke and Imandt of whom Police Lieutenant Greif
has officially stated that they frequently consorted with Fleury.

“To increase the value of his commodity,” says Goldheim, Fleury
put the notes in the form of an original minute-book. He not only commits a
fraud, he also forges signatures and all this to “increase the value of
his commodity”. So scrupulous a man as this Prussian agent, who for
profit manufactures forged minutes and forged signatures, is obviously
incapable of manufacturing forged notes. Such is Goldheim’s
inference.

Dronke and Imandt did not come to London until April 1852, after they had
been expelled by the Swiss authorities. However, one-third of the original
minute-book consists of entries for the months of January, February and March
1852. Fleury therefore manufactured one-third of the original minute-book
without Dronke and Imandt although Goldheim had sworn that the minute-book was
written either by Liebknecht — or else by Fleury, following, however, the
notes of Dronke and Imandt. Goldheim swore to it, and Goldheim it is true is no
Brutus, but he is Goldheim.

But the possibility still remains that Dronke and Imandt furnished Fleury
with notes from April onwards for, Goldheim swore: “Police Lieutenant
Greif has officially stated that Dronke and Imandt frequently consorted with
Fleury.”

Let us examine this association.

As we have noted above Fleury was known in London not as a Prussian police
agent but as a businessman in the City, and indeed as a democratic businessman.
Born in Altenburg he had come to London as a political refugee, had later
married an English woman from a wealthy and respected family and apparently
enjoyed a quiet life with his wife and his father-in-law, an old Quaker
industrialist. On October 8 or 9 Imandt began to “consort
frequently” with Fleury, in the capacity, that is, of tutor. But
according to the improved version of Stieber’s evidence the original
minute-book arrived in Cologne on October 10 — according to
Goldheim’s final statement on the 11th. By the time that Imandt, whom he
had never set eyes on till then, had given him his first French lesson, Fleury
had not only had the original minute-book bound in red morocco leather, he had
already entrusted it to the special courier who brought it to Cologne. So
heavily did Fleury rely on Imandt’s notes when writing the original
minute-book. As for Dronke, Fleury only saw him once and by chance
with Imandt, and this was on October 30 by which time the original minute-book
had long since dissolved into its original nothingness.

Thus the Christian-Germanic government is not content with breaking into
desks, stealing papers, obtaining false testimony by underhand means, creating
false plots, forging false documents, swearing false oaths, and attempting to
suborn witnesses — all this to bring about the condemnation of the
Cologne defendants. The government attempts also to cast suspicion on the
London friends of the accused so as to conceal the activities of their Hirsch
now that Stieber has sworn that he does not know him and Goldheim has sworn
that he is no spy.

On Friday, November 5, the Kölnische Zeitung arrived in London with
the report of the court sitting on November 3 and Goldheim’s evidence.
Inquiries about Greif were made at once and the very same day it was learnt
that he lived in Fleury’s house. At the same time Dronke and Imandt paid
Fleury a visit taking with them a copy of the Kölnische Zeitung. They
gave him Goldheim’s testimony to read. He went pale, tried to regain his
composure, pretended to be utterly astonished and declared himself perfectly
willing to make a statement against Goldheim before an English magistrate. But
he said he must consult his solicitor first. They agreed to meet the following
afternoon, Saturday, November 6. Fleury promised to have his statement
officially witnessed and said he would bring it to the meeting. Of course, he
did not appear. Imandt and Dronke then went to his house on Saturday evening
and found there the following note addressed to Imandt:

“With the solicitor’s help everything has been
arranged; further steps can be taken as soon as the person in question has been
found. The solicitor sent the relevant documents off today. Business
commitments have made it imperative for me to go to the City. If you would like
to visit me tomorrow I shall be at home the whole afternoon until 5 o'clock.
Fl.”

On the other side of the note there was the following
postscript:

“I have just arrived home but had to go out again with
Herr Werner and my wife- I can prove this to you tomorrow, Leave me a
note saying when you would like to come.”

Imandt left the following reply:

“I am extremely surprised not to find you at home now,
especially as you did not come to meet us this afternoon as arranged. I must
confess that in the circumstances my opinion of you is already fixed. If you
wish me to revise it you will visit me by tomorrow morning at the latest for I
cannot guarantee that your activities as a Prussian police spy might not find
their way into the English newspapers. Imandt.”

Fleury did not appear on Sunday morning either, so in the
evening Dronke and Imandt went to his house once again in order to obtain his
statement by making it appear as if their confidence in him had only at first
been shaken. Finally, after all sorts of procrastinations and doubts the
statement was formulated. Fleury hesitated most when it was pointed out to him
that he must sign with his Christian name as well as his surname. The statement
went literally as follows:

“To the editors of the Kölnische Zeitung

“The undersigned declares that he has known Herr Imandt
for about a month during which time the latter gave him tuition in the French
language and that he met Herr Dronke for the first time on Saturday, October 30
of this year.

“He declares further that neither of them gave him any
information in connection with the minute-book mentioned in the Cologne
trial.

“That he does not know of any person by the name of
Liebknecht nor has he ever been in contact with anyone of that name.

“Kensington, London, November 8, 1852.Charles Fleury”

Dronke and Imandt were, of course, quite sure that Fleury would
instruct the Kölnische Zeitung not to print any statement signed by
him. Accordingly they sent his statement not to the Kölnische Zeitung
but to Schneider II, the lawyer, who however received it when the case was too
far advanced for him to make use of it.

Fleury is not indeed the Fleur de Marie of the police prostitutes, but he is
a flower and he will bear blossom, albeit only fleurs-de-lys.* But the
story of the minute-book is not yet finished.

Fleurs-de-lys [lilies] is the French colloquial name
of the letters T. F. (travaux forcés [forced labour]), the brand-mark of
criminals. The accuracy of Marx’s judgment is demonstrated in the
Postscript (VIII, 1). [283][Note by Engels to
the edition of 1885]

On Saturday, November 6, W. Hirsch of Hamburg made an affidavit before the
magistrate at Bow Street, London, to the effect that under the direction of
Greif and Fleury he himself had fabricated the original minute-book that
figured in the Cologne communist trial.

Thus, it had at first been the original minute-book of the “Marx
party” — after that it was the notebook of the police spy Fleury
— and lastly it became the manufacture of the Prussian police, a simple
police manufacture, a police manufacture sans phrase.

On the same day that Hirsch revealed the secret of the original minute-book
to the English magistrate at Bow Street another representative of the Prussian
state was busy packing at Fleury’s house in Kensington, and this time the
things he was packing in stout oil-cloth were neither stolen nor forged nor
even documents at all, but his own personal belongings. And this bird was none
other than Greif whom we remember from Paris, the special courier to Cologne,
the chief of the Prussian police agents in London, the official director of
mystifications, the Police Lieutenant attached to the Prussian Embassy. Greif
had received instructions from the Prussian government to leave London at once.
There was no time to be wasted.

Just as at the end of spectacular operas the rising amphitheatrical set in
the background that had previously been obscured by curtains now suddenly
flares up in a blaze of Bengal light dazzling all eyes, so too at the end of
this Prussian police tragicomedy the hidden amphitheatrical workshop was
revealed in which the original minute-book was forged. On the lowest level
could be seen the wretched spy Hirsch working at piece rates; a little higher
up was the respectably situated spy and agent provocateur, the City businessman
Fleury; higher still the diplomatic Police Lieutenant Greif and highest of all
the Prussian Embassy itself to which he was attached. For 6-8 months Hirsch had
laboured week by week to forge the original minute-book in Fleury’s study
and under his watchful eyes. But one floor above Fleury dwelt the
Prussian Police Lieutenant Greif, who supervised and inspired him. However,
Greif himself regularly spent a part of his day in the Prussian Embassy, where
he in his turn was supervised and inspired. Thus the Prussian Embassy was the
real hothouse where the original minute-book grew and flowered. Hence Greif had
to disappear. He disappeared on November 6, 1852.

The authenticity of the original minute-book could not he sustained any
longer, not even as a notebook. The Public Prosecutor, Saedt, buried it in the
address he gave in reply to the concluding speeches by Counsel for the
Defence.

The trial had now reached the point at which the Indictment Board of the
Court of Appeal had begun when it ordered a new investigation because
“there was no factual evidence of an indictable
offence”.